What is *worldbuilding* for?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Combat as performance art? Now there's one I've never heard before.

That said, I was taking the sport-war analogy and applying it more to the whole game rather than just combat. Exploration-as-war means deadly traps, sometimes-harsh environmental conditions, real risk of dangerous resource depletion (e.g. no water in the desert), etc. Social-interaction-as-war is a bit harder to define other than that NPCs will have their own sometimes-secret agendas which will inform if not outright direct their responses to the PCs.

See, I object to this entire categorization because it implies that there is some sort of 'difficulty range' where certain games fall into some sort of elite 'hard mode' category and the rest are 'just sport' and have some lesser agenda. It just doesn't accurately reflect the range of elements in RPGs nor is it useful to try to rank them in some such way. It isn't even a useful division in terms of how games are DESIGNED, nor of techniques used in play.

Agreed. But within the scope of reasonable play the DM can't be expected to pull her punches: if the PCs get in over their heads (with or without advance warnings of danger) then so be it - characters will die. Whole parties, however, very rarely die: they're incredibly resilient things.

There are no 'punches' in RPG play. RPGs are a cooperative exercise.

I don't mind seeing the DM as adversary when she's playing an adversary (which is a lot of the time); nor do I mind seeing her as an ally when she's playing an ally. When describing the game world etc. I see her as a neutral arbiter, ditto for when she puts her referee's hat on for rules and ruling questions.

But there is no 'neutrality', everyone has a goal, and it is essentially the same goal. An 'adversary' is simply a dramatic tool used to accomplish the goal.

This sounds fine for the short term but after a while would get really grating. Every now and then in the fiction it's nice for the PCs to be able to stand back, maybe take a few weeks off from adventuring, look around and proactively decide what we-as-a-party are going to do next. The way you've written this, it sounds like such breaks never come to DW characters.

Lanefan

But again, this is your interpretation. Characters could spend YEARS between scenes. There's no need, or even any strong motive particularly, to set every scene framed 5 seconds after the last. In fact I'd call this urge another effect of 'Thinking Like Gygax'.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Now you insist that Agency is just the players being able to control the actions of their PCs. I don't disagree with your description as a description - it entails that when there is force, players lack agency, and that seems right. (We could quibble over whether "decision" and "action" co-refer, but I'm not going to.)

All the action consists in the following: what does it mean for a player to control the actions of his/her PC? Or for another participant (such as the GM) to exercise control over those?

My own view - which is not an expression of a semantic opinion, but an expression of a preference for play - is that if a player's declared action cannot succeed, because of an unrevealed decision by the GM about the setting/backstory, then the player does not have control over his/her PC's actions. The GM has, on that occasion of play, exercised control.

I think the sticking point here is simply that the two of you (you and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], I mourn the lack of nested quotes sometimes) are just drawing a line at slightly different points. The ultimate results of that line drawing difference are pretty significant, but in terminological terms (yay English) there's no need to fight about which one 'owns' the term 'agency'. Earlier you particularized it as 'agency with respect to the fiction' or some such words. I think that's perfectly adequate and Max needs to be reasonable and accept it. Using 'agency' is a perfectly reasonable expediency. We could as easily quibble with Max's use of the term and refusal to particularize HIS use (but I won't bother).

To be precise; Max considers the GM's 'framing power' to extend to all aspects of fictional positioning such that any restriction on the character (and thus player decision agency) falls under that framing power (GM Agency). You draw a slightly different line under which player decision making agency extends to any matter which decides how the character will engage with the thematic elements of the scene (resolve the conflict inherent in that scene). Thus your player agency definition extends to the effects of fictional positioning which are restrictive of engaging with those thematic elements.

In Max's technique of play players can only have agency to act within the GM's stated fictional positioning constraints. If a wall is without secret doors then the player has no recourse to one. In your technique a player has recourse to search said wall for a secret passage in order to move the narrative onto a path which engages with character traits, genre logic, thematic elements, etc. (the exact list, the procedures used, and the exact details depend on game system and other factors).

One problem I note with the critical analysis of [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s stated technique preferences is a lack of acknowledgment of the limits of player agency. Players DO NOT HAVE (in most systems, and certainly in the ones under discussion) limitless agency to obviate fictional positioning. They have a limited agency to change the effects of fictional positioning when it leads to certain types of results. Indeed, Eero Tuovinen seems to be advocating for a type of game where the GM retains sufficient agency to obviate any excesses attempted by players beyond what is prescribed. That is how I read it anyway.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Do you have me confused with someone else? You maybe fireball me banging really really hard on the chess vs checkers drink, or maybe that I'm currently running both a traditional 5e game and a Blades game? Or that I've also argued against traditionalists when they've misrepresented narrativst play? Yes? No?



I can't think of a single thing that @pemerton has ever said that makes me uncomfortable. He's said things i disagree with, and, after a few rounds of back and forth I usually see where he's coming from, I find I often don't disagree with the core of his point but rather with the simplistic, broad-brush, highly negative way he presented it. The bit about reading to players things from the GM notes, for instance. He's got a point - a lot of traditional play does have the GM answering questions about the fiction as results of action declarations. But, the way he's defined "from notes" as anything made up by the DM as a response to action declarations ias so hopelessly vague that he's capturing gameplay from narrativist play as well and captures many moments of traditionalist play that are actually moving closer to narrativist play. That's counter productive because it's calling out some near similarities that could be used to bridge understanding and instead lumping them in with things that are most opposed. I say this as someone who made that jump and saw those similarities and differences. So, yeah, there I can agree with some underlying issues but the overall statement I cannot.

Largely, @pemerton comes across less as someone actually interested in advocating his playstyle and more like someone being aggressively defensive abbot their playstyle. From his statements, he clearly feels like his playstyle had been attacked in the past and he did not like it.

I believe what you quoted was a reply to [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], wasn't it?

 

[Bedrockgames]

There are no 'punches' in RPG play. RPGs are a cooperative exercise.

I can appreciate this isn't a feature of everyone's campaigns. But for me, and for most GM's I know, how hard you are punching definitely is a thing you consider. It doesn't necessarily make it adversarial (though it definitely can be), but I do view it as gears I am engaging in the game. To me the punching analogy is pretty solid. What percentage of force are you using? Sometimes the GM handles players with kid gloves, sometimes not. Knowing what mode you are in as a GM is pretty useful.

As a player, I personally prefer the GM to take on a somewhat adversarial role when running monsters, traps, etc. Some of the most exciting sessions I've experienced are when the GM pulls no punches and a character or two end up dead. When you know the GM isn't pulling punches, it can add to the excitement.

Not the way everyone is going to play the game, but it is definitely a style and definitely a way to think about play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yet if the players do want to spend time on it, what then? Something has to give: either your enjoyment of running the game or their agency to declare what their PCs attempt in the fiction.

Seems like a 'table issue' to me. If the players are playing game X and the GM is running game Y then they need to get on the same page, or change tables.

 

[Lanefan]

See, I object to this entire categorization because it implies that there is some sort of 'difficulty range' where certain games fall into some sort of elite 'hard mode' category and the rest are 'just sport' and have some lesser agenda. It just doesn't accurately reflect the range of elements in RPGs nor is it useful to try to rank them in some such way. It isn't even a useful division in terms of how games are DESIGNED, nor of techniques used in play.

Then how else are we to delineate the differences between - let's use some design-level examples:

- a game system that by design is often deadly to its PCs and a game system that by design plot-protects the PCs such that they can only die if their players allow it
- - (sub-category) a game system where simple survival is always a goal underlying any other goals and a game system where survival is not an issue
- - (sub-category) a game system where the story of the party-as-a-whole is primary and a game system where the individual stories of the PCs are primary
- a game system that by design has PCs be very little different from ordinary game-world people and a game system where the PCs are exceptional to the point of uniqueness
- a game system that delves into details of resource and treasure acquisition/management and a game system that handwaves these things

Some of these are war-vs.-sport comparisons and some are gritty-vs.-(not gritty?).

There are no 'punches' in RPG play. RPGs are a cooperative exercise.

Taken to its conclusion, that says that in the spirit of said co-operation the DM should always fudge her rolls or sub-optimally play her monsters such that the PCs in the end get what they want; be it a combat victory or a solution to the mystery or whatever. I don't think this is what you were getting at - at least, I sure hope it wasn't! - and so you might want to try this one again.

But there is no 'neutrality', everyone has a goal, and it is essentially the same goal. An 'adversary' is simply a dramatic tool used to accomplish the goal.

The DM has the goal of running a fun, playable, engaging game. The players have two "levels" of goal: one, to enjoy what happens at the table and be engaged/ing and entertained/ing; and two, their PCs have goals within the fiction - goals which, for a good story to unfold, must meet some opposition along the way. This opposition comes from the DM.

But again, this is your interpretation. Characters could spend YEARS between scenes. There's no need, or even any strong motive particularly, to set every scene framed 5 seconds after the last.

What I was responding to was an example of yours that was just this: out of the frying pan and immediately into the fire; and the way you put it made it seem like this was typical of story-now. That said, in those years between scenes (which I assume are downtime) do the PCs get a chance to sit back and chart their own course for what they do next?

In fact I'd call this urge another effect of 'Thinking Like Gygax'.

Er...huh? Explain?

Lanefan

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Let's say that I want to jump over a 3 foot ditch and I am unaware that there is a forcefield that is both invisible and inaudible in the way. We will call the forcefield hidden backstory. When I take a running leap and hit that forcefield, I have failed to succeed. What has not happened, though, is anyone else, even the creator of that force field, controlling my actions. I declared my action. I engaged in that action. I succeeded in the attempt. Nobody controlled me, but me. Failure when reasonable, even if due to causes unknown to the action declarer, cannot remove control from the player.

You are falsely equating hidden backstory(reasonable failure) with a DM saying, "You fail because I don't want you to succeed.", and that's a fallacy.

This is, IMHO, a category error which stems from your fundamental resistance to understanding that the 'game world' is simply a form of consensual fiction. In a game where the GM asserts control over all fictional positioning it IS a constraint on player agency, ALWAYS.

Note that even your example doesn't work. In the real world if I put walls around you (say by putting you in jail) I most certainly have constrained your agency. This is the essence of incarceration! The very notion of agency itself would fail to hold any meaning were it any other way. Or would you maintain that agency consists of people merely having the power to WANT to do something? Were that true then we could relegate the entirety of Western Society's movement to personal freedom as nothing at all!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Then how else are we to delineate the differences between - let's use some design-level examples:

- a game system that by design is often deadly to its PCs and a game system that by design plot-protects the PCs such that they can only die if their players allow it

I would categorize them by the ends and not by the means. Nor is it possible to categorize all game systems in this way, you must also consider the means and techniques used in play. Some game systems might unequivocally not contain the concept of character death, but for many systems this is a point of variance between games. 4e would be an example of this.

- - (sub-category) a game system where simple survival is always a goal underlying any other goals and a game system where survival is not an issue

I would answer the same as above.

- - (sub-category) a game system where the story of the party-as-a-whole is primary and a game system where the individual stories of the PCs are primary

I wouldn't consider this axis to be relevant to the topic.

- a game system that by design has PCs be very little different from ordinary game-world people and a game system where the PCs are exceptional to the point of uniqueness

I wouldn't consider this to be relevant.

- a game system that delves into details of resource and treasure acquisition/management and a game system that handwaves these things

I think you are trying to imply that only in the former could the game be truly 'hard'. I think you confuse resource management for a wider category of games in which problem-solving is a factor. This is a much wider range than is encompassed by any 'CaW/CaS' axis.

Some of these are war-vs.-sport comparisons and some are gritty-vs.-(not gritty?).

I think there are a variety of responses to different axes of variation in games and game designs.

Taken to its conclusion, that says that in the spirit of said co-operation the DM should always fudge her rolls or sub-optimally play her monsters such that the PCs in the end get what they want; be it a combat victory or a solution to the mystery or whatever. I don't think this is what you were getting at - at least, I sure hope it wasn't! - and so you might want to try this one again.

Again, you are caught in oppositional thinking in which being an advocate for the PCs is the same thing as "letting them win" some sort of opposed game. This is a mistaken proposition in Story Now play.

The DM has the goal of running a fun, playable, engaging game. The players have two "levels" of goal: one, to enjoy what happens at the table and be engaged/ing and entertained/ing; and two, their PCs have goals within the fiction - goals which, for a good story to unfold, must meet some opposition along the way. This opposition comes from the DM.

I would say something different, which is that the goals within the fiction are simply tools used to fulfill the agendas of the players, who do so to enjoy the game. All goals are united in some sense. Opposition is a tool, admittedly a useful one!

What I was responding to was an example of yours that was just this: out of the frying pan and immediately into the fire; and the way you put it made it seem like this was typical of story-now. That said, in those years between scenes (which I assume are downtime) do the PCs get a chance to sit back and chart their own course for what they do next?

Sometimes you can go from frying pan to fire, sure. Examples aren't exhaustive catalogs.

If a scene follows another scene with a fictional period of years between then presumably the previous scene established a trajectory leading to the framing of this next scene in which it made dramatic sense for time to intervene. If the player wishes to describe that intervening time, that's fine. In HoML I would call this an 'Interlude'. Within such an interlude there would be no dice tossed and no dramatic action. It could be that the extent of the time between scenes could be determined by the content of the interlude (IE it lasts until the player describes the character re-engaging with some fiction by taking up a conflict). It could also simply be a narrative device handled in the scene transition by the GM at more or less length. Presumably this would comply with the desires of the players.

Er...huh? Explain?

Another way to describe the oppositional puzzle-game-based classical D&D thinking. I think 'Gygax Thinking' has a less controversial ring to it than '2-dimensional thinking' (but maybe a less explicit reference to the differences in thinking).

 

[Bedrockgames]

This is, IMHO, a category error which stems from your fundamental resistance to understanding that the 'game world' is simply a form of consensual fiction. In a game where the GM asserts control over all fictional positioning it IS a constraint on player agency, ALWAYS.

Note that even your example doesn't work. In the real world if I put walls around you (say by putting you in jail) I most certainly have constrained your agency. This is the essence of incarceration! The very notion of agency itself would fail to hold any meaning were it any other way. Or would you maintain that agency consists of people merely having the power to WANT to do something? Were that true then we could relegate the entirety of Western Society's movement to personal freedom as nothing at all!

This is a ludicrous argument. You are going from a real world obstruction to the act of putting someone in jail and equating them. I think what is going on here is there is a huge split in how people use the term player agency. It isn't a product of some fundamental misunderstanding on the other poster's part. It is simply a product of people playing an conceptualizing the game differently and through different metaphors. Some people by player agency seem to mean something like their freedom to create in the story and setting. Others seem to mean their freedom to have their character explore a setting freely. Either way, what it seems like is going on is the term itself is being used as a proxy to advance a play style preference. Clearly you guys have different preferences. Only an autocrat would assume that means either of you fundamentally misunderstand roleplaying or having fun, agency, etc. Basically one meaning is about the player, the other about the player character. Terms like this are hard to control and change when they get into general use. I'd say, the better thing to do is just ask someone what they mean when they use a word if there is disagreement over the meaning. Debates over gaming terminology like this, lead us to miss the forest from the trees and almost always seem to take us pretty far from real table considerations.

 

[pemerton]

Let's say that I want to jump over a 3 foot ditch and I am unaware that there is a forcefield that is both invisible and inaudible in the way. We will call the forcefield hidden backstory.

I am taking it here that "I" refers not to the real person Maxperson, but to Maxperson's PC in a RPG. Otherwise the example makes no sense, because being hidden backstory is a (relational) property of RPG fiction, not a property of things in the world.

When I take a running leap and hit that forcefield, I have failed to succeed. What has not happened, though, is anyone else, even the creator of that force field, controlling my actions. I declared my action. I engaged in that action. I succeeded in the attempt. Nobody controlled me, but me.

Continuing from above, the word "I" here must refer to the PC. Discussion of whether or not, in the fiction, a PC controls his/her choices is largely irrelevant to analysing the play of a RPG. The play of a RPG is not an imaginary thing that is undertaken by imaginary people (unless you're playing a RPG about RPGers) - it is a real activity undertaken by real people.

Failure when reasonable, even if due to causes unknown to the action declarer, cannot remove control from the player.

Now, instead of talking about the PC, you are talking about the player. And you provide no argument.

If a player's action declaration for his/her PC fails because the GM adjudicates it by reference to some unrevealed element of framing, then it is the GM, not the player, who in that particular episode of play is exercising control over the content of the fiction. Eg the GM has determined that it shall consist of an invisible forcefield, and hence shall not include any jumpings over ditches.

You are falsely equating hidden backstory(reasonable failure) with a DM saying, "You fail because I don't want you to succeed."

I've never said anything about what the GM does or doesn't want. I've talked about who is exercising control over the content of the fiction.

In your example, it is not the player who decided that jumping the ditch could not succeed. Nor did the action resolution mechanics determine that. The GM determined that by way of an authorship process in which the player did not participate. Which is to say, the GM exercised control.

If the presence of the force field is in no way hinted at, if the player has no idea it could possibly be there, then the character cannot succeed at the attempt. In which case, the decision of success and failure has already been made. So in that sense, there is a lack of agency in the sense that the chance for success does not originate with the PC.

I would say - the chance for success does not depend upon the player. And that is exactly for the reason that you give. (Which I've bolded.)

I also think that "desire" doesn't factor into it. A GM who is a stickler for never departing from his/her notes might regret that the forcefield is there, because it gets in the way of engaging play here and now. Nevertheless it would be the GM's decision that is controlling the outcome.